Why am I reluctant to see Avatar?

1) I know the whole plot of the movie based on the preview. There's a planet of blue people who live peacefully. Humans want some made up natural resource they have (read allusions to oil, water, etc.) and want it at any cost. The humans turn one of them into a blue person to understand how they think. The human/blue guy ends up realizing that the blue people are right and fights with them to defeat the evil humans. That's the whole movie.

2) This is a massive budget, CGI filled, fantasy driven film whose message is that we need to protect the trees. It seems like Irony to me.

The reason I'm interested and will probably see the movie, is twofold. First, I think there will be amazing action sequences. Second, I think Avatar is the first movie where CGI characters are the good guys fighting against the evil human actors. That newness is interesting in its own right.

So...I guess I'll see it...even though I know the blue guys will win.

Why do I steal from the rich to give to the rich?

I saw a film a couple nights ago and decided to buy a child's ticket at a discount of $3.50 off the regular price. Usually I have strong moral feelings about stealing, even small stealing like this from a major company; in other words, seemingly harmless stealing.

But the other night I felt morally justified in buying a discounted ticket because I bought a bucket of popcorn for $6.50 that I wouldn't have otherwise. The reason that I say I stole from the rich and gave to the rich, was that by doing this I was taking money from the film distributor's and giving it to the theater.

Film distributors get the vast majority of the money from ticket sales, sometimes as high as 100%. This is why film theaters charge so much for popcorn and soda, that's where they make all their money. So in buying a discounted ticket but an expensive popcorn, I was taking money from the film distributors, and giving it to the theater.

So in a way, I felt like I was stealing from my local theater, in order to help my local theater. I just hope they appreciate my efforts.

Why does the National News always cover weather?

For some reason I've noticed that every time I watch the evening news on one of the networks they have a story about weather. Floods, snow, hurricanes, clouds, it's all they seem to care about.

I think this is for a few reasons.

1. It's Apolitical. This is the biggest and most bothersome reason that the networks love weather stories. CBS, NBC, and ABC are so worried about being biased that they love a juicy blizzard story that has no political sides at all. Rather than covering pressing issues or societal problems, it's a safe bet that weather is not going to illicit a lot of angry e-mail.

2. It's cheap and visually appealing. This is probably even a bigger reason. To cover a blizzard all you really need is the internet, a cameraman, and one guy willing to stand out in the storm and read the news with dramatic weather behind him.

The reason this trend is bothersome to me is not only that these stories are boring, (which they always are), and not just that they are local or regional stories and not national news (who in New York cares about the weather in Tulsa and Visa versa), but because for every story about weather that's one more big story they don't cover. One more Coup of a foreign state, one new controversial law, one new scientific study that gets ignored in favor of weather.

Shape up Network News and start covering what really matters. I'm going to go to my window and yell "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." But first I'm going to check the weather to see if I should put on a sweater.

Why is it so easy to accept that there are no atheists in foxholes?

If you're like me, a cowardly, Northeastern Liberal Elite, who believes in saving the world but is afraid to stick my own neck out, then this is a hypothetical situation. But it's pretty easy to postulate that if I was in a war zone alone in a foxhole, I would ask god for help, or at least a virgin when I got up there.

Religious people often use this analogy to say that we all see the reality and meaning of god in moments of crises and that it is our day to day life where we walk blind. They say that in the mundane moments of the day, say at the dinner table, in the bedroom, on the toilet, that we don't see god in those moments. But that when we're overwhelmed by a tragedy, or a hurricane or yes a bullet, that in those moments we both see the power of god and realize that we need god.

But an Athiest could use those same extreme moments of distress as proof that there is no god. An Athiest might say that yes, in a foxhole, facing gunfire and death, that many people may believe in god. But an Athiest would argue that is because in that situation someone is no longer capable of thinking or behaving rationally. That in such an irrational situation, it is rational to think irrationally, i.e. that there is a god.

So while religious people would say that god is the truth and that it sometimes takes irrational occurences to wake someone up to the truth of god in the mundane everyday life. Athiests might say that only irrational situations will make people believe something that is so absurd as god.

So what's interesting about the "No athiest in a foxhole" idea is that it's something that everyone can agree too, without agreeing to anything at all.

How is TV both the disease and the medicine?

We all knew those kids that grew up with no television in their life. Interesting kids is the nice way of putting it. Strange weirdos might be more appropriate. TV is a great bond between people, a cultural living history that we all share. But while TV can be incredible, we also know instinctively that it's bad for us.

Never have I read something that describes this feeling so well as David Foster Wallace's essay on TV in A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never do Again. Today I wanted to share his words about TV as the escape and the trap. How TV creates a problem which only TV can solve. Enjoy:

"Of course, the downside of TV's big fantasy is that it's just a fantasy. As a Treat, my escape from the limits of genuine experience is neato. As a steady diet, though, it can't help but render my own reality less attractive (because in it I'm just one Dave, with limits and restrictions all over the place), render me less fit to make the most of it (because I spend all my time pretending I'm not in it), and render me ever more dependent on the device that affords escape from just what my escapism makes unpleasant."

Does Truth Matter in Comedy ?

The short answer is yes, and no.

Yes it does matter that the comedy seems to be true. But no, it does not matter if the comedy is actually true.

Comedians are regularly lying. The most common premises start, "So my girlfriend just broke up with me..." or, "I was on the subway on the way over here and..." These bits are almost always technically untrue. Their girlfriend broke up with them 8 months ago, the subway incident happened last year. But they could be true in the audience's mind. And that's all that's necessary. The audience will go with your story and likes to believe that everything is happening in the present; that your girlfriend just broke up with you, that the crazy subway ride just happened, these make the jokes funnier. It's why we want the comics to lie to us, but to lie to us in such a way that we believe it as the truth.

We also want a broader sense of truth in our comedy, the truth that it could or did happen to you. We want comedy that is real. We don't want motorcycle stories from someone who would never ride a motorcycle. Or stories about trouble with girls from models who must never have had trouble picking up girls in their life. But again, it's about perception. We only need to believe that you could have done something, even if it's not really true.

A while ago I saw a great comedian named Buddy Flip (that's actually his name) performing at a comedy club in New York. He said on stage that he's quit smoking, but that he used to smoke and he has a great bit about smoking. He then went into his material, "So I was smoking the other day and..." The joke was ruined. The laughter wasn't there. Because in acknowledging that his joke was a lie, he ruined the veil of truth that we've come to expect. And now he was just doing Stand-Up lying.

So, does truth matter in comedy? Absolutely. An audience has to believe 100% that what you're telling them happened to you and that it's the god's honest truth. But does it matter if it's actually true, not a bit.

Why did a stranger give me a shirt?

A few days ago I woke up at 4:30 AM for my debut as an extra. A background performing artist! I've made it. I knew from the phone call the night before that the wardrobe request would be a problem. They said they wanted "East Village Hip" or "Soho Sheik." Something with a neighborhood I can't afford and a word that doesn't apply to me.
I wore my favorite yellow shirt and my nice suit pants that I think fit well. After chomping down some eggs and cantaloupe they asked all the extras to check in with wardrobe. They looked at me and instantly asked me to bring over my other clothing options. Gazing at my clothes they seemed confused. "What happened to your tie?" one man said. "Your jacket is falling apart," said another woman. "We're going to get you a shirt," said the tall man bluntly but kindly.
15 minutes later I took off my yellow button down revealing an admittedly very worn, now semi-white undershirt. "Try this on," said the kind tall man, "without the undershirt."
I came back from a corner room wearing their trendy, stripey, brown and blue shirt, on my bare skin. "See he looks really good now" said the tall kind man. "And throw away that white shirt, it's disgusting. Buy a bunch of new ones at Filene's Basement." They took my voucher to ensure that I returned my shirt in order to receive my salary. I went back to my folding chair in my fitted, what I feel is tight, shirt.
A couple minutes later I felt a tap on my shoulder. I turned around to see the tall kind man beckoning me with his hand. I walked over to him and he handed me my voucher and said, "We want you to keep the shirt, it's from us."
Clothing is definitely not my forte, and this isn't the first time that a production has taken pity on me and let me keep my wardrobe. And I'm sure it won't be the last. But never have they cut to the core of me so quickly and so acutely. I can't help but laugh at myself for not even passing as fashionable in the background. Little do they know that I wear my clothing in the foreground of my life everyday.
Thanks for the shirt tall kind man, I'll try to take care of it.

How is Sarah Palin like Anna Kournikova?

Sarah Palin has been in the news again as an author and an X-men character, Rogue. But what does she have in common with a Russian tennis star? Sarah Palin's continued success has to do with her marginal amount of political talent and success, combined with the fact that she's hot. Though many liberals goggles are clouded, objective observers have to acknowledge that this former beauty queen is very attractive. And she's attractive in the perfect way for this moment. While Cougars and MILF's are all the craze, here is Sarah Palin, a mom with those librarian that could go wild at any moment glasses.

And in America, looks still go a long long way for women.

In fact, for women to be famous in America, there is an inverse relationship between talent and beauty. Meaning that if a woman is extremely talented she does not need to be as attractive. And for someone with extremely good looks she needs only marginal talent. And that's the side of the spectrum where Sarah Palin comes in. On the one side you have your Hillary Clinton's, your Madeleine Albrights, your Sonia Sotomayors. Eminently qualified women, but not the head turners that sell magazines and books. On the other hand there is Sarah Palin, a governor of one of the least populous states in the union, and a gimmick pick for VP running mate, who is famous beyond her political skills.

Anna Kournikova was a tennis player who had only once, briefly, entered among the top 10 female tennis players. And yet she is probably the most famous name in Female tennis. This is because her small amount of skill combined with her ridiculously good looks, makes for a winning combination.

In the inverse example which shows some promise for the future, is Susan Boyle. The British singer, unattractive but extremely talented, has now had the best selling CD release in Britain, ever. With lots of talent, perhaps beauty can sometimes take a back seat. But for now, plan on seeing a lot of Sarah Palin and Anna Kournikova, and not much else.

Why do Iraqis think the Emperor is wearing clothes?

In a country where we started a war looking for weapons that didn't exist, Iraqis are now searching for real weapons using technology that doesn't exist. It was reported in the New York Times yesterday that a "Bomb Detector" being used in Iraq is seen as useless by American military officials and "Technical Experts." The "Bomb Detector" is a handheld wand that is supposed to point to cars when there are guns or explosives inside. It doesn't work. According to US Military generals and technical experts it is something that they never use.

Yet Iraqis have bought 1500 of these at up to 60,000 dollars a piece from a British company that makes incredible claims about their abilities. All over the country these are used at checkpoints in what is basically a shadow game of protection. Though Iraqis are no safer, they may get a false sense of security from what is essentially a magic 8 ball.

This would be funny if it weren't frighteningly real and being used in a war torn country. The depravity of selling something like this to developing countries is beyond opportunism, it is shameful. In Iraq, not just the US, people continue to buy into infomercial claims and refuse to accept that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is. Real bomb detection machines, such as those used at airports are bulky and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It's sad when a product being used by the military is worse than using nothing. Because now for with a false sense of safety, there is no impetus for change. The US government along with the Iraqi parliament should demand that the ADE 651, made by ATSC (UK) Ltd., either show that the product works, or refund the money to Iraq. There is no room for magic in a war zone, and there should be no tolerance of this blatant manipulation of an army that is putting an entire population at risk.